Why is one side so willing to compromise but the other is so unyielding? Doesn't that suggest that one side is a bit off-kilter?

The only thing that's off-kilter is your entire post. Sorry to be so dismissive but it comes across as the rambling of someone who thinks smoking is some god-given right. It's not. There's no need for compromise. This isn't even a smoker vs anti-smoker issue -- at least the way I see it. This is governments slowly realizing the social and economic burden of smoking. Ironically, it's the smokers whining about these bans who stand to benefit the most from them.

Steelrails comes across as a big baby, surprise surprise. "It's my right!" like a typical entitled pos.
I am a non-smoker only because I have f-king terrible asthma. If I didn't, I would smoke like a chimney.
It's strange. Bars are where people drink = smoke.
As much as I dislkie his skewed logic..I must confess Steelrails is correct in saying there maybe should be some smoking bars.

Are you forced to work in a coal mine and be exposed to coal dust? Are you forced to work on a crab boat? Are you forced to be a soldier in the US Army?

A silly oversimplification and just another example of a smoker trying to rationalize a disgusting habit.

A coal miner (or a firefighter) has a substantially increased risk of lung cancer and other ailments. They voluntarily chose to work in a hazardous environment. Same with an employee at a smoky bar. Waiters and waitresses aren't stupid. They know what they're getting into.

Plus, what about restaurants and bars that are family owned and operated? Shouldn't they have the right to chose whether or not they want to deal with smoke? Why should the government tell them that they shouldn't have smoking for "employee safety" if they themselves are both employees and owners?

Heck, smokers, ever willing to compromise and accommodate because we are reasonable people, would be willing to grudgingly accept a ban on smoking in non-family owned and operated establishments. That would cover 95% of places, basically leaving mom & pop chicken shacks or down & out bars as the last options. Even though we still maintain that employees at restaurants, bars, and clubs are IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM FORCED to work at them.

This isn't just about smoking. It's about the right of private business owners to chose certain things. It's about the concept of privacy and the limits to which other people should be able to regulate perfectly legal activities.

Where are the compromise proposals from the anti-smoking crowd? Ban it in government buildings and flights? "Fine" say the smokers. Ban it in office buildings and normal places of commerce? "Fine, makes sense" say the smokers, just let us enjoy a cigarette after work in a bar.

Now anti-smokers want to ban it in restaurants. Most smokers would accept that- no reason a Big Boys at 7PM should have a cloud of smoke.

But when it comes to bars, clubs, strip clubs, and casinos, that's when the argument of "health & safety" really starts to go south. But heck, compromise proposals are offered by smokers.

But that's not enough, it has to banned in private clubs, like Elk's Lodge's. Even VETERANS are banned from smoking in Veteran's Halls. Some anti-smoker thinks its okay to tell a veteran missing a limb that they can't smoke in their private Veteran's Hall.

But that still isn't enough. They want it banned outdoors. They want it banned in apartments. They want it banned if you have kids.

Why is one side so willing to compromise but the other is so unyielding? Doesn't that suggest that one side is a bit off-kilter?

It's not an argument based on rational application of the limits of privacy and safety. Privacy allows us strip clubs. Work place safety allows coal mining. It's an argument based on personal disgust for a personal habit.

That's right-wing fringe thinking.

I don't know what you're smoking, but you better quit. It's affecting your ability to make a rational argument.

Steelrails comes across as a big baby, surprise surprise. "It's my right!" like a typical entitled pos.
I am a non-smoker only because I have f-king terrible asthma. If I didn't, I would smoke like a chimney.
It's strange. Bars are where people drink = smoke.
As much as I dislkie his skewed logic..I must confess Steelrails is correct in saying there maybe should be some smoking bars.

My lungs are so bad that heavy scent on the subway can set them off.

I loathe ciggie smoke.

I'm really drunk. So that's all.

I think that's the point more or less being made. I don't really want to stand on the roof and proclaim my right to smoke or anything, but I really wish the legislation was being looked at more broadly.

Case in point, there is a certain bar in Korea, and this bar specializes in being a cigar bar. It sells cigars, it has that particular ambiance of a cigar bar, and it makes no mistakes about what it is. The owner said "Hey, I want to open a cigar bar" and that's exactly what the owner did.

If the new legislation goes through fully and includes cigars then homeboy is out of luck. For a bar expressly built to cater to cigar smokers.

I don't even go to this bar very much, as I rarely smoke cigars. However, if the government says no smoking then it kind of ruins the owner's business plan. But hey, got to make room for progress and all.

What do stats about the US have to do in a discussion about South Korea?

Lets entertain the thought for a second that they are relevant to South Korea (which they clearly aren't)...45% is still a minority. And so, the majority of food service workers (in the US) are non-smokers.

Last edited by 12ax7 on Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:09 am; edited 2 times in total

45% isn't most. You didn't merely misspeak. You were simply wrong. Oh, and as noted by another poster, that Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration study didn't poll even one person in Korea.

I'm with rails on this. No harm in having an easy to install and cheap to maintain air extraction unit in a 'smoker's area' in any pub and restaurant.

Many pubs and bars in the UK have been forced to close down due to the lost custom of smokers.

Smokers are the more fun people anyway, usually.

No.

They are third class tirds who are a drain on public healthcare in western countries. FUN YAY

Smokers are failures in adaptation. They fail to adapt, but they succeed in enjoying poison and lung cancer. Smokers are not wieners, they are WINNERS, in reduced cardio capacity, paying more on disposable taxes on cigarettes, and emphasema.

I'm with rails on this. No harm in having an easy to install and cheap to maintain air extraction unit in a 'smoker's area' in any pub and restaurant.

Many pubs and bars in the UK have been forced to close down due to the lost custom of smokers.

Smokers are the more fun people anyway, usually.

No.

They are third class tirds who are a drain on public healthcare in western countries. FUN YAY

Smokers are failures in adaptation. They fail to adapt, but they succeed in enjoying poison and lung cancer. Smokers are not wieners, they are WINNERS, in reduced cardio capacity, paying more on disposable taxes on cigarettes, and emphasema.

Call it an even trade off!

Well, that's not an extreme response at all. Could one also be deemed a "failure in adaptation" if they fail to spell 'turd' or 'emphysema' right? I'm letting you off with 'wieners'.

And, yeah... smokers loooove poison. Yum, "YAY" for taxed drugs that make people addicted while doing nothing for them...

As a smoker, one can choose when to have smoke in their lungs and when to have clean air. Non-smokers do not have that choice in a bar or restaurant or any place that permits smoking, which is about every place you can go to. Also, if none smoking places are available they are usual not chosen, as the needs of the smoker out weighs the needs of everyone else, they do not want to go outside every 5 minutes. In Korean winters when the night time temperature can drop to -15C, i can see why people would not want to see their friend have to spend time out side in the harsh weather for the sake of an evening avoiding smoke. But, if a group had 1 none smoker, it is highly doubtful that a non-smoking bar would be chosen to accomodate the needs of the one, even if the weather was warm.

Part of the problem of the smoke is that it is a personal choice that affects everyone in the vacinity. You can claim smoking is your right, but by saying the non-smoker doesn't have to be there, you are placing your right to affect everyone with the smoke is of higher importance than the right of the non-smokers not to partake. Every bar until this ban was a smoking bar, so the argument that you don't have to be there means that you either have to put up with the smoke or stay at home. Surely everyone has a right to a social life, don't they?

I work at a university, and the place is plastered with no smoking signs in bathrooms as well as hallways. But still i have to put up with a cloud of smoke everytime i go to the bathroom as it is too far for the delicate students to walk to the designated smoking balconies 30 metres away. And unlike the restaurant question; Nature is forcing me into the bathroom! (as well as all the water i drink during my classes) It seems that Koreans are perfectly happy to break rules / laws if it means they are not put out. Just this evening i saw a man pissing on the buckets (used for washing vegetables) outside a Haejanggook restaurant because it was easier than walking over the road to the convenience store toilet. When the woman came out, he utterd a very insincere apology and walked away. I suspected he was sorry that he got caught, not for what he had done.

If we're lucky, one of the consequences of the new legislation actually will be fewer people smoking and thus (I hope) a drastic decrease in their disgusting carpet of cigarette butts all over the place.

If we're lucky, one of the consequences of the new legislation actually will be fewer people smoking and thus (I hope) a drastic decrease in their disgusting carpet of cigarette butts all over the place.

Like I've already said, banning smoking inside university buildings has had a considerable affect on the number of university students who smoke. Used to be dozens upon dozens of them smoking in the halls, so much so that a short walk from my office to my class would leave me smelling like an ashtray. When the ban went into affect, a lot of them would smoke in the bathroom...But nowadays, you'll rarely see more than 4 or 5 students smoking outside by the entrance and students smoking in the bathroom isn't a problem anymore. It worked. Very few smoke.

What do stats about the US have to do in a discussion about South Korea?

Lets entertain the thought for a second that they are relevant to South Korea (which they clearly aren't)...45% is still a minority. And so, the majority of food service workers (in the US) are non-smokers.

As I said, I misspoke. They DO have the highest rate of smoking of any profession. Now, if you add in the smokers that aren't bothered by smoke and add in the fact that certain types of places- Bars, and such might be operated by people with a higher rate of smoking than say, an upscale restaurant.

Now, as for the Korea vs. USA thing, I'm willing to bet that in a country which has a significantly higher rate of smoking that number might go above 50%.

Quote:

45% isn't most. You didn't merely misspeak. You were simply wrong. Oh, and as noted by another poster, that Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration study didn't poll even one person in Korea.

See above. It IS the industry with the highest rate of smoking.

Quote:

As a smoker, one can choose when to have smoke in their lungs and when to have clean air. Non-smokers do not have that choice in a bar or restaurant or any place that permits smoking, which is about every place you can go to.

Factually untrue. There are scores of restaurants which do not permit smoking.

Also, almost every restaurant caters to meat eaters. Do vegetarians DEMAND that menus be changed to suit them? No, they open their own restaurants or dine somewhere else, possibly at home. You do not have a right to dining out anymore than someone has a right to smoke.